We also have freedom to vote for universal healthcare to reduce the total cost of human ownership for our corporate overlords, or other legislation to gently remind them of their obligations to the communities that foster them and frankly are civil enough not to raid their executive golf courses and steal their gold-plated trash cans.
Not quite: we can vote for people who claim that they will implement these policies, who then are bought lock, stock and barrel by the corporations that we voted them in to oppose.
I'm pretty much the typical 'target' of most of the American outsourcing anger that gets vented here on/..
As an American, I feel that this anger is misplaced, but understandable. I mean, when you're in the situation where it is nigh impossible to find a job (as I do), and you have a family to feed (which I don't), you're not going to be very rational.
And as it's been said, that in the long run this should be good for everyone, I'm reminded of a quote by Keynes: "In the long run, we're all dead."
The way most Indians see it, this is mostly American capitalism biting them back in the ass. Sure, we understand that Americans wouldn't be too happy about losing their high-paying jobs, but that is something they will just have to deal with.
Please understand that not everyone here believes in cutthroat pure capitalism, and most don't have much control over it.
Also, realize that companies are outsourcing because they can pay (relatively) low wages, while charging (relatively) high prices in the US. Now, since many of us no longer have our "high-paying" jobs, the market those companies are tapping into is disappearing. That means the affluence you are currently enjoying is temporary.
You state that an IT worker with 3-4 years of experience earns a salary of about $1000 per month. Assuming a 40 hour work week, that's not much higher than minimum wage in the US. It's definitely not a living wage, especially if you've got a family. So most of us weren't exactly spoiled rich with our previous salaries.
Nah, just do the challenge/response protocol, so that it will know that a certain host definitely sent the email you just received. Then:
A) Send all confirmed emails to a "Priority" folder.
B) After after this has started to catch on widely, start sending everything _not_ confirmed to a "Spam" folder.
C) Finally, after virtually nothing but spam winds up in that folder, just set your filters to delete instead.
After this happens, you can prosecute anyone in the US who spams, and block anyone outside the US that spams. If foreign ISPs, etc want to get their email through again, they can implement the above solution themselves, and we'll remove the block.
Better than starving. Once one's avoided starvation, one can start thinking about improvements.
Same with slaves. You can think about improvement all you like, but it doesn't mean it's possible to do so. It certainly isn't possible for _everybody_ to get rich.
And again I must ask: what is the difference between the specific threat, when the message is the same: "Work for me or die"?
One has a moral duty to provide food and shelter for the needy. But this has nothing to do with employment. Real slavery begins when one depends on government instead of his neighbour.
BS. Slavery is slavery, regardless of who is the master. Forcing the poor to rely entirely upon charity is just making sure the rich have the power to decide who lives and who dies. They've proven they will not use such a power responsibly.
It sounds like you're perfectly happy to widen the gap between rich and poor, and make the latter into a permanent class of slaves.
If someone is poor and hard-working enough to want that wage, good: he's got a job, and is less poor for that.
If he earns enough to stay alive, and nothing more, he's a wage slave. Because really, if you're saying "Work for me or die", does it really matter whether you're using a gun or starvation as a threat?
A border is an artificial barrier, in this case keeping a few rich and many poor. Everytime someone manages to infiltrate, inequality becomes less.
Bullshit. The poor get poorer, and the rich profit, and the class inequality between rich and poor grows more and more. And any improvement that those who come across the border gain is quickly offset by a rising population (and even more people coming over). All it does is erode the middle class and make our poor even poorer.
It is one's choice to take the risk or not. If fewer people take the college risk, the ones left will earn more and college prices will lower, or quality will improve.
Or, we could do like much of Europe does and provide universal college education for all those who desire it, and we can reduce that inequality between classes.
But even when ones doesn't get college, one still has public high school, libraries, Net access and the such, which again are usually unavailable at the Third World.
High school; take a guess as to how effective it is for the majority of people, and how much of it most people remember. As for libraries and internet access, it's very difficult to use either of those when you're working 16 hours a day just to survive.
Can't one really? It is hard to believe that when so many people are still trying to enter the country. It seems more probable that one can't find a job according to his (comparatively overblown) expectations.
Yeah, how unreasonable to want to be paid at least minimum wage. The people entering the country quite often are coming from south of the border where things are completely intolerable. Then they work here, being hired illegally by criminal corporations (redundant, I know).
At least in the US and Europe one has access to training resources and unemployment benefits that are either too expensive or simply lacking in Third World countries.
Training resources? Like college? In the US, college is pretty damn expensive. Most college graduates are in serious debt, and they need high paying jobs just so they don't go bankrupt.
Simple; the US didn't enforce anything on MS because MS contributed a lot of money to Bush, and he instructed Ashcroft to ignore MS. See how US politics works now?
Pffft. When I'm sending out hundreds of resumes, I have very little on the line with any one employer who sees it. I have a lot more on the line when I'm actually working for somebody. The effort I put in to either one isn't at all related.
The Big Record companies, on the other hand, are filled greedy bastards that steal from both the music listener and the music creator. They are filled with Publicists, Publishers, Lawyers, Administrative Assistants, Makeup Artists, Video Producers, Marketing Assistants, and various, useless people that don't have anything to do with creating music.
Look at it this way: these countries who currently have no protections for workers can do one of two things in response to the US implementing this policy: they can either implement basic human rights protections, which will cost them some profit, or they can say goodbye to more money than they'll ever see any other way.
Now, when given the choice between a little less profit and a lot less profit, which do you think they will choose?
And the ones who hang on barely surviving will riot and eventually kill all the people in the upper classes. Look at what happened during the French Revolution.
Frankly, I think we should tarriff goods and services that are created/performed in countries that don't have a minimum level of protection for human rights. Of course, this would upset a lot of powerful people, and so it won't happen.
We shouldn't be protecting workers for picking professions where the pay is not what they thought it would be. Let's see... I'm going to go to college to become a teacher, then I'll bitch because I don't make nearly enough to survive. I'd say that's a case of rampant stupidity since it would be easy to research before you got into that field.
Wait, you're saying a person is stupid if they can't predict the state of the economy 4-8 years from now? Even economists can't do that.
That's not quite true. There are a lot more poor people than there are rich people, so the democratic party should win every election. Except the repubs are very good at conning the general public. They have a very organized propaganda machine, compared to the chaos in the democratic party.
Come on, minimum wage isn't even enough to survive on bare minimum, plus enough money to cover those luxuries that have become necessities (a car in many parts of the country). They want to pay people less than it takes to survive in this country.
Europe and the US went through periods of horrendous exploitation and abysmal working conditions before workers demanded, and got, improvements. China will probably follow the same path if given a chance.
In the US and Europe, we had representative democracy, and free speech (US at least). In China, they have neither of these, and unions are explicitly illegal. I think it would take a successful revolution to change things there, and the Chinese government has shown that it will use force ruthlessly against dissidents.
Actually, that's the national mint. That's where money comes from.
But basically, money is power: power to get other people to do things, whether it be to wash your car, try and invent new stuff, or assign you the rights to his company.
And you cannot create more natural resources, regardless of how much technology you have. You can figure out new uses for resources, you can figure out how to use them more efficiently. But you can't make more out of nothing, and you certainly can't use technology to make sure they're distributed more evenly.
Thing is, you'll still have to compete with the people who still live in the US, and soon enough the hordes will be so large that you will either A) be pressured into receiving less and less pay for your time, or B) be replaced with someone who will take those lower wages.
Slashdot Mirror
And as it's been said, that in the long run this should be good for everyone, I'm reminded of a quote by Keynes: "In the long run, we're all dead." Please understand that not everyone here believes in cutthroat pure capitalism, and most don't have much control over it.
Also, realize that companies are outsourcing because they can pay (relatively) low wages, while charging (relatively) high prices in the US. Now, since many of us no longer have our "high-paying" jobs, the market those companies are tapping into is disappearing. That means the affluence you are currently enjoying is temporary.
You state that an IT worker with 3-4 years of experience earns a salary of about $1000 per month. Assuming a 40 hour work week, that's not much higher than minimum wage in the US. It's definitely not a living wage, especially if you've got a family. So most of us weren't exactly spoiled rich with our previous salaries.
Nah, just do the challenge/response protocol, so that it will know that a certain host definitely sent the email you just received. Then:
A) Send all confirmed emails to a "Priority" folder.
B) After after this has started to catch on widely, start sending everything _not_ confirmed to a "Spam" folder.
C) Finally, after virtually nothing but spam winds up in that folder, just set your filters to delete instead.
After this happens, you can prosecute anyone in the US who spams, and block anyone outside the US that spams. If foreign ISPs, etc want to get their email through again, they can implement the above solution themselves, and we'll remove the block.
And again I must ask: what is the difference between the specific threat, when the message is the same: "Work for me or die"? BS. Slavery is slavery, regardless of who is the master. Forcing the poor to rely entirely upon charity is just making sure the rich have the power to decide who lives and who dies. They've proven they will not use such a power responsibly.
It sounds like you're perfectly happy to widen the gap between rich and poor, and make the latter into a permanent class of slaves.
Simple; the US didn't enforce anything on MS because MS contributed a lot of money to Bush, and he instructed Ashcroft to ignore MS. See how US politics works now?
Pffft. When I'm sending out hundreds of resumes, I have very little on the line with any one employer who sees it. I have a lot more on the line when I'm actually working for somebody. The effort I put in to either one isn't at all related.
Look at it this way: these countries who currently have no protections for workers can do one of two things in response to the US implementing this policy: they can either implement basic human rights protections, which will cost them some profit, or they can say goodbye to more money than they'll ever see any other way.
Now, when given the choice between a little less profit and a lot less profit, which do you think they will choose?
Then you try and get the law changed. You don't arrange it so your employees have no process for addressing _legitimate_ issues for a lawsuit.
And the ones who hang on barely surviving will riot and eventually kill all the people in the upper classes. Look at what happened during the French Revolution.
Frankly, I think we should tarriff goods and services that are created/performed in countries that don't have a minimum level of protection for human rights. Of course, this would upset a lot of powerful people, and so it won't happen.
Yeah! Corporations shouldn't be required to obey the law. How unreasonable!
Wait, you're saying a person is stupid if they can't predict the state of the economy 4-8 years from now? Even economists can't do that.
That's not quite true. There are a lot more poor people than there are rich people, so the democratic party should win every election. Except the repubs are very good at conning the general public. They have a very organized propaganda machine, compared to the chaos in the democratic party.
Come on, minimum wage isn't even enough to survive on bare minimum, plus enough money to cover those luxuries that have become necessities (a car in many parts of the country). They want to pay people less than it takes to survive in this country.
Well, what's our motivation to stop us from slapping huge taxes on companies that hire foreign workers not living in the US?
Actually, that's the national mint. That's where money comes from.
But basically, money is power: power to get other people to do things, whether it be to wash your car, try and invent new stuff, or assign you the rights to his company. And you cannot create more natural resources, regardless of how much technology you have. You can figure out new uses for resources, you can figure out how to use them more efficiently. But you can't make more out of nothing, and you certainly can't use technology to make sure they're distributed more evenly.Thing is, you'll still have to compete with the people who still live in the US, and soon enough the hordes will be so large that you will either A) be pressured into receiving less and less pay for your time, or B) be replaced with someone who will take those lower wages.